torium

Members
  • Content Count

    429
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

176 Excellent

About torium

  • Rank
    Member

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    Other
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. torium

    Nail in coffin AFS2...?

    Of course, I'm not a mind reader - and therefore can not know what JV thinking. And IPACS may disappear tomorrow. It is impossible to know. But I see no signs that JV has abandon AFS2 - or "a 180 degree turnaround." As previously mentioned: A small team = slow development. In such a familiar context - Venema just pointing out the obvious (from a business point of view), quote: "Yes, I am on record saying our AFS2 efforts are a long-term R&D investment, and this has been ongoing for over two years now. However at some point the R&D has to pay back its investment and this has not been the case with AFS2. For that reason we have recently re-focused back to our core P3D platform and expanded into XP11 which has proven to be profitable in terms of units sold and the XP community embracing Orbx products." This recent statement is consistent with what Venema said earlier, quote: "You must keep in mind that your continued support of P3D as our core platform makes it possible for us to spend R&D on XP and AFS2. If everyone abandoned P3D then that would pretty much stop development for AFS2 stone cold dead." First priority, of course, is the revenue from P3D and XP11. As JV says, this is what allows them to invest for the future. It does not mean that Orbx has abandon AFS2. Or do you think that Orbx is now finished releasing new products for AFS2?
  2. torium

    Nail in coffin AFS2...?

    Thanks for good comments - although I see the situation differently. Is it likely that IPACS is locked in its own bubble without touch with reality? It's hard for me to believe that IPACS does not follow the situation closely. There is reason to believe that IPACS is also informed about the sales figures. Orbx has economic interests in that IPACS succeed. So how much called Venema (Orbx) with alarm bells when he visited IPACS? J van E quoted John Venema: "I spent a day in Germany with the IPACS team about six weeks ago and they showed me some pretty exciting stuff to come in the sim, so please don't write it off just yet!" Why? Venema also said: "We work very closely with IPACS on projects and share tech between our companies all the time. There are obvious technical issues to solve as we introduce new systems into AFS2 but working so close with IPACS allows us to overcome those obstacles in good time. AFS2 has so much excess framerate bandwidth that adding new systems won’t diminish its performance as we move forward. We previewed Palm Springs airport at FSExpo in June running at 200fps on a laptop with full PeopleFlow2 support – What a sim! We have internal tools being coded in conjunction with IPACS and other contractors to allow us to rapidly build out airports and other aspects of terrain, so we are investing all the time to accelerate the development cycle for that sim. Vulkan will provide even more headroom for further tech to be added." IPACS may disappear tomorrow. But today we as customers can choose to listen to their wishes. They know our wishes very well.
  3. torium

    Nail in coffin AFS2...?

    What is your point? I still do not understand your negative attitude. It's like a drug addict who is only concerned with the next shot. As previously pointed out, IPACS has repeatedly said that they are a small team. A small team = slow development. Is it hard to accept? Previously John Venema (Orbx) got the following question: "Do you (JV) have any thoughts about why not experienced manufacturers like Carenado, Alabeo, Just Flight, etc., convert their products to Aerofly FS2? Is the customer base - preliminary - too small?" The answer from John Venema: "Yes the customer base is too small and they aren’t willing to invest R&D for no profit. Things may change once the sim matures though." Furthermore, John Venema said: "We view AFS2 as very much a 'foundation sim' which is a work in progress with a lot of potential over the coming years. Therefore all the work and R&D we are doing with ports and new scenery products are not contributing to our bottom line but it's an investment in the future. The IPACS team have been working very hard on core engine systems (therefore the Vulkan option recently released) to further optimise the sim ahead of new tech and systems being introduced. Rome wasn’t built in a day and it will take time for AFS2 to compete at a features level wwith P3D and XP11, but for VR flying nothing can touch it right now." "There are plenty of Orbx TrueEarth regions coming for AFS2 to keep the scenery fans happy." I am 100% agree with this assessment from John Venema. AFS2 is for the future - the new fresh blood that our community needs. IPACS is very open and aware that it will take time. Spreading negative rumors that can indirectly infer AFS2's slowly dead - are directly destructive - and in no way constructive. So please give IPACS the time they need. If you are not interested in joining the journey - please come back in 2023. Perhaps a helicopter has appeared.
  4. torium

    Nail in coffin AFS2...?

    Of course not. They have never done that. "The FS community as a whole" use what they think is best - NOW - today.
  5. torium

    Anybody still playing Aerofly FS 2?

    Is the attitude of IPACS bad? If you have purchased a product that does not work as advertised - you have reason to complain. But I do not think that applies to Aerofly FS2. As WingZ points out, there are positive criticisms and negative criticisms. And then it should be unnecessary to emphasize that negative criticism is not positive. Therefore IPAC tried to explain the situation from their point, quote: - "Over time users tend to write reviews of their experience but human nature pushes us to sometimes look at the negative in things rather than what is good in a product. [...]. It's sometimes difficult for us to stay motivated ... [...]. Most individuals don't understand how hard it is to make a quality flight simulator with such a small team, and we do know that Aerofly is still missing a lot of features that everyone (including us) want to see in Aerofly, but to get bashed in reviews for our shortfall without knowing our own story hurts the evolution of our product. [...]. Let me all assure you, we have great plans for the future of Aerofly and you will see more progress this year already. But we know from the past, that we need a very good code base to create a long living product. That’s mainly the reason why it takes longer for certain features to get published than you expect. But publishing stuff to hastily with a bad internal interface is something that will hurt future development in the long term. And there is another reason that development is maybe different compared to other simulators: We are perfectionists and we love our product and we just can’t publish anything if we think it’s not right. This level of perfectionism is even more important than maximizing our profit." This is the real life. Accept it - or move on. Soon we will have a few new flight simulators to play with. Will they be perfect? No. Do you really think that if you did not point this out - IPACS would not even know that the load time now is slower? I am very grateful to anyone willing to spend time and money on the development of flight simulators. I am by no means convinced that this hobby has a long and bright future. Unfortunately.
  6. torium

    Anybody still playing Aerofly FS 2?

    Agree. AFS2 is for those who like to join in the journey. Not for those who just like the end of the line.
  7. torium

    Reflections and questions about AFS2

    Can you please explain specifically what features are missing in Aerofly FS2 in order for you to carry out "realistic transoceanic flights"? It guessing that it was not so easy to answer that question. Sérgio Costa (helisimmer.com) writes in his review, quote: - "Yes, you could potentially fly the world in it, cross the US from LA to Miami or do a trans-oceanic flight all the way to beautiful Innsbruck, but the sim simply doesn’t offer a full world scenery right now." https://www.helisimmer.com/reviews/orbx-trueearth-netherlands-ipacs-aerofly-fs2/
  8. torium

    Reflections and questions about AFS2

    The reproduction on the right side has better graphics:
  9. torium

    Reflections and questions about AFS2

    Can you please explain specifically what features are missing in Aerofly FS2 in order for you to carry out "realistic transoceanic flights"?
  10. To me this is a weird conclusion. If I was new to flight simulation - I would investigate which simulator I should choose. An old simulator that is no longer being further developed - or a whole new one that just started development. If I read repeatedly that this new simulator is just crap that is not going to survive - do you think I then had chosen this? Maybe not? Would it be positive for the development of the new simulator that I instead bought the old one? I do not think so. And if ever more people are affected to lose faith in this new simulator - the possibility of failure will increase. Do you agree? All economics are governed by psychology. Is it then positive for the development of new simulators like FSW or Aerofly FS2 - that some individuals complain again and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, .... etc. - that this simulator is rubbish and will not survive? How are new buyers influenced by this repetitive message? Why do you think that IPACS earlier this month wrote on its own website (and "humbled themselves"), quote: - "We need that kind of support so that we can keep moving Aerofly forward. Most of the negative reviews posted on Steam were inaccurate or simply from users that purposely want to hurt our product. This makes it hard for us to keep momentum." Exactly !!!! The important keyword: - "This makes it hard for us to keep momentum." FSW was condemned and disappeared. Now it's Aerofly FS2 to be removed. Why? I know why. Do you? "And with shouts of joy he cries out: - Yes, I was right. This simulator is luckily dead now."
  11. You read my comment out of context. It was about scenery - "how much it would cost to cover just Europe and the United States with the TrueEarth type scenery:" What I mean is that we can not compare Aerofly FS2 "TrueEarth Netherlands" with P3Dv4 "TrueEarth Netherlands" (I have both). This scenery for AFS2 recreates the real landscape much closer to reality than P3Dv4 (landclass scenery).
  12. Please do not compare apples with pears.
  13. I remember being very impressed by the weather generator in Flight Unlimited II (or III). The weather raised the experience significantly.
  14. I also want it perfect. But it is not realistic - technological. If you are equally critical about the scenery in FSX / P3D or X-plane - you will quickly discover that the scenery is a caricature of reality (angular "zigzag" roads, etc.). Therefore, it is an advantage with a type of "psychological" adjustment - otherwise you may lose the joy of flight simulation. Because it's actually simulation - and not reality. Remember, Darwin showed that anyone who can adapt to the current flight simulator - survives (live) better. Stop focusing on whether color nuances are absolutely correct - or that the currently simple clouds are not completely realistic, etc .. I choose to enjoy the opportunities AFS2 gives me (with all its limitations). With the new amazing AeroScenery tool (including GeoConvert) - I can now create my own scenery (almost completely automatic) in an hour. Of course, it's not as good quality as Orbx - but I accept that (and in the meantime, AFS2 will be further developed). Now, for example, the helicopter arrives soon - I hope. https://www.helisimmer.com/previews/new-look-r22-ipacs-afs2/